----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 8:46 PM Subject: Re: 'Virtual' Child Porn Act Ruled Unconstitutional
> << And, if that's not an unimpeachable source, what is? I mean Playboy would > > have nothing fake in it, would it. :-) >> > > > Their reporting on matters concerning First Amendment rights is usually on > the level. Since protecting those rights is obviously a matter of great > concern to them. > > I knew when I mentioned Playboy that it would seem frivolous. But regardless > (perhaps because of) of their subject matter, they take civil liberties very > seriously. > In other words, they have a strong financial interest in ensuring that there is no restriction on their publishing? Before I'd take them at their word, I'd like to see them show some decent cites. For example, how many millions of dollars of child pornography does the post office sell each year. What is the total market? How do they arrive at the last estimate? My guess is that they rely on the arrest statistics: that the Post Office sting operations are associated with a significant fractions of the arrests. But, it should be apparent to the most casual reader that this is a biased sample. Why trust Playboy on issues regarding pornography more than Phillip Morris on health issues? Yea, they are soft core, and should be legal, but they have a clear bias. Dan M.
